About the browsers, I am currently using Namoroka 64-bit, and it runs WAY faster on my system then the 32-bit firefox. I also read on a forum (don't know if it's actually true) that Mozilla will be coming out with a native 64-bit firefox soon. The only downside to using 64-bit web browsers is Adobe's lack of a 64-bit flash plugin, however flash is hopefully going to be a thing of the past too, because the web is something that should be open, and adobe is EXTREMELY closed. Things like Java, PHP, and HTML are very open, flash is owned very specifically by Adobe, which is why Apple is moving away from it. Flash can VERY easily be replaced by the new HTML5, Java, and the other open standards of web design. (DOWN WITH THE BLOATED ADOBE!)

There are nothing but advantages to using 64-bit applications, and people can say what they want, but anyone who knows anything about computers knows that they evolve fast, and a month ago 64-bit was a tomorrow thing, but now 64-bit is today, it's becoming widely standard, and in a few years, you'll be hard pressed to find a new 32-bit computer. Software really needs to catch up, when an application is 64-bit, what that really means is the processor is processing it at a higher bit rate, and yes, maybe it uses more memory, but another thing anyone that knows anything about computers, is memory is easy to come across nowadays. In a few years 8 GB of RAM will be standard, and 16 to 32 GB will be what 8 is now.

The computer industry is evolving fast, and there are a lot of Open Source programs that need to catch up. OpenOffice is not really behind, they just need to seriously think about going 64-bit soon, otherwise they WILL fall behind.

However even software like Gimp has 64-bit versions now, I use the windows one, technically "unstable", but in reality it's very stable.Windows Media Player Classic also has a 64-bit version, works great.However things like KompoZer have a lot of catching up to do, because of other standards coming in like html5, not only does it not have support for it, but when I import a page with some html5 it actually deletes some of the code because it doesn't understand it.

Anyways, sorry about the rant, but basically the 32-bit version of OpenOffice should run fine on a 32-bit system, but 32-bit is slowly going to die out, and 64-bit is going to take over, so they do need to change over. (And maybe soon we won't have to have TWO different program files folders making Windows even more cluttered then it already is! )

It's probably a matter of time, but for the present it's also a matter of money.

MS Windows Vista - AOO 4.1.1 - LibreOffice 4.3.If your problem has been solved or your question has been answered, please edit the first post in this thread and add [Solved] to the title bar.Nederlandstalig forum

chrisadam12 wrote:Adobe has still not given any indication of when a 64 bit Windows version of their Flash Player will be made available, and the 32 bit version cannot be used in conjunction with a 64 bit browser under Windows 7 / Vista 64.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/: Adobe® Flash® Player "Square" is a preview release that enables native 64-bit support on Linux, Mac OS, and Windows operating systems, as well as enhanced support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 beta.

I ALSO think there should be a Win64 version of OpenOffice.I have Windows 7 64 bit and the 32 bit DOES work fine, I admit, but, it doesn't change the fact the the world is moving 64.

32 bit is dieing, you can deny it all you want, but it's a fact.

64 bit means more data being processed per second, (for those who don't know what it means, if you have a 2 GHz processor at 32 bits, it means it's processing 2 billion cycles per second, and 32 bits per cycle, so if you are processing 64 bits per cycle, that is twice the speed)

Remember, the over all capacity and power of a computer doubles about every 1 1/2 to 2 years, and 64 bit machines have been getting much more popular for about the last year, so give it about another 6 months to a year, and you will be VERY hard pressed to find a NEW 32 bit machine.

Also, think about it, once everything moves 64 bit, there will be no more need for 2 program folders, and 2 versions of things like Java!

People can use any excuse they want, but if ANY software wants to survive, it MUST convert to 64-bit on ALL platforms, because all major operating systems are now 64 bit. You can move forward, or stay still and get left behind.

Oh, and about the Adobe Flash thing, I was using the 64 bit flash player square with 64 bit Namoroka (Unofficial Firefox) for a while, and it worked OK. Also there is a 64-bit firefox 4 beta (Landmine or Minefield something like that) and regardless of what a lot of people might think, it IS actually an official Mozilla beta, I downloaded it from Mozilla, but it was very glitchy.

Can I just check- when viewing the openoffice process in task manager, the CPU never goes above 50% (on occasion it says 51). The affinity is set to use both processors. Is this related to the fact that OO is 32-bit so can only use have the processing power? Or some other reason?

I was told thie following problem is the result of running OO on a 64-bit machine: OO runs fine but does not close properly. Consequently up to 5 versions run at once, considerably increasing CPU use. I discovered this through Task Manager. Then, erasing all but one version works, but the problem of course recurs. Can anyone tell me if this is caused by the 64-bit mismatch? I have tried de-intstalling/reistalling, no use; I have de-installed and installed LibreOffice instead, which is successful, but the problem with LibreOffice is that Windows refuses to recognise it as a default suite!.

rlsymonds wrote:I was told thie following problem is the result of running OO on a 64-bit machine: OO runs fine but does not close properly. Consequently up to 5 versions run at once, considerably increasing CPU use. I discovered this through Task Manager. Then, erasing all but one version works, but the problem of course recurs. Can anyone tell me if this is caused by the 64-bit mismatch?

KoRnKloWn » Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:24 am wrote: "People can use any excuse they want, but if ANY software wants to survive, it MUST convert to 64-bit on ALL platforms, because all major operating systems are now 64 bit. You can move forward, or stay still and get left behind."

I have to say I totaly aggree to this, it starts to annoy me , that I can't get 64bit Versions of several programs, whenwill all the developers finally catch up with the latest systems ?

+1 for a 64-bit version.With Windows, the problem is that 10 years after 64-bit systems have been released, you are still condemned to use mostly 32-bit apps. If you compare your Program Files and Program Files (x86) folders, you'll see that 75% of the apps you use are still 32-bit.In this state of the question 64-bit is more a disadvantage, since you often need two versions of most resources.

MSFT does recommend using 32bit for most people however they have already come out with 64bit and I have it installed. But Really? Siting OO's direct competitor's recommendation as validation for not keeping pace with them. WOW! Everyone knows that 64bit is the future and for many of us it is the now. If Oracle really wants to gain market share in the office software space then they need to remove barriers not create them. Also don't take an indefensible position of "cost to much, user doesn't really need it". If those were valid concerns nobody would have a touchscreen smartphone. I've used OO for years but when 64bit Ms Office came out I switched back. I've got some IBM software on my PC (not for long) and have taken the same position. Funny thing IBM can't seem to figure out why they are loosing market share to MSFT. Even funnier is that they have 128bit server hardware and software to match but can't seem to get over the 32bit client side hurdle. In today's world of viral customer feedback companies much be more agile not less. Netflix lost 12 billion dollars of market capital and 1million customers in a few short months due to a couple ill timed changes. Hindsight being what it is had they opted to make small incremental changes over the course of a couple years to pricing instead of a %60 jump for most customers they would not have lost most of that market share. OO is not and will never be about innovation. I find it a very sad situation.

Your point is void - please remember that OOo is not a commercial product that brings in pots of money for its developers. If it was bringing in much money, Oracle wouldn't have dumped it. It's a free download. By all means go back to MSO - but I am a bit puzzled that this 32/64 bits issue is driving you away. There are some far more serious issues in OOo that would constitute a really good reason to abandon it.

MS Windows Vista - AOO 4.1.1 - LibreOffice 4.3.If your problem has been solved or your question has been answered, please edit the first post in this thread and add [Solved] to the title bar.Nederlandstalig forum

swathikumar wrote:When I see OpenOffice.org site there is no 64 bit Windows version is available.Is there any OpenOffice 3.2.1 available for windows 64 bit? If it is available please provide URL to download.If it is NOT available at present then please let us know when it will be ready for available.

Thank you in advance.

There is no Windows version of OpenOffice.org that requires a 64-bit system. All versions (3.3.0 is the lastest) are for x86 code and they run fine on 64-bit versions of Windows that support operation of 32-bit applications.

There is no scheduled availability of an Apache OpenOffice release that includes a 64-bit Windows version. I am unaware of any schedule for a Windows version of LibreOffice that requires a 64-bit system, but it would be better to check on the LibreOffice site.

/a3 wrote:Just FYI, x86 was specifically designed to support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.

Umm, x86 is strictly 32-bit. Some 64-bit processor designs allow x86 programs to run more-or-less native, or have an x86 mode. The 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 run x86 applications that way.

It has the effect of removing the urgency for wholesale conversion of applications, including ones that will never be converted for some reason.

The migration to 64-bit applications is complicated for productivity suites and any other applications that have an ecosystem of dependencies that are primarily available as 32-bit only. Of course, as those disappear or become 64-bit only, the need for a 64-bit application increases. There might even be a time when 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the suites are installed side-by-side simply to continue to use certain extensions, plug-ins, and special services (such as database middleware) that are only available to one or the other.

You know developers might know every pros and cons about 32bit VS 64bit but us simple users don't. I'm thinking of changing to IE because it's 64bit and I've been vocal to avoid IE at all cost. Yes the 64bit might just be psychological and in fact there is little to no advantage but until I know better, that's what I plan to do. I'd rather not end up having a set of programs both on 32 and 64 bit so I'd rather just jump the 64bit bandwagon right now that my system is fresh.

You know developers might know every pros and cons about 32bit VS 64bit but us simple users don't. I'm thinking of changing to IE because it's 64bit and I've been vocal to avoid IE at all cost. Yes the 64bit might just be psychological and in fact there is little to no advantage but until I know better, that's what I plan to do. I'd rather not end up having a set of programs both on 32 and 64 bit so I'd rather just jump the 64bit bandwagon right now that my system is fresh.

So, you're admitting that the developers know about the pros and cons, but you don't trust them? And how is IE related to this discussion at all?

You're not gonna be able to get 64-bit versions of every program. If I were you, I'd prioritize functionality over "freshness". I know it doesn't feel nice to fill your newly installed Windows installations with unnecessary software, but Windows was actually designed to host both 32-bit apps and 64-bit apps.

And yes, it seems to be way too psychological (for you at least). You're not accomplishing anything by sticking to rules like these. You didn't even explain properly why. What kind of philosophy is "I don't know what it is, but I'm not gonna try it"? It's not very dangerous to try this out...

PS you used the word "emulate" in the bug tracker. There is no emulation. Your 64-bit CPU was designed to be backwards compatible. If you want to be a purist, get hold of an Itanium You will come to see things my way: If it works, it works. I'm sure the developers would be delighted if people didn't fill the bug tracker with "me too" posts.